Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Everything's pushing up roses

In their ongoing (and ironic) barrage against the media, conservatives often ask:

"Why don't they ever report the GOOD news about Iraq?"

I've always wondered about that myself. After all, you never see, "99,997 troops not killed today." What is it exactly that makes journalism so obsessed with the dark side? As the old saying goes: if you see the glass as half-full, then you're an optimist. Journalists not only see the glass as half-empty, they also examine the odd fingerprint smudges on the glass and wonder how many strains of listeria are dog-paddling in the water. I, for one, refuse to take this negativity lying down! I'm long past tired of seeing the mainstream media painting a critical picture of Iraq in a deliberate attempt to undermine our great Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush! Though I could list any number of the plethora of negative news sites out there, I'll focus on one that has the audacity to feature such headlines as these:

--House readies more war funding--Search continues for parts of crashed Harrier--Corps admits it moved too slowly to uparmor Humvees--DoD plans to expand Guantanamo detention center--No drawdown in Iraq likely soon, general says--Gunny convicted in lover’s murder--Memorial service scheduled for corpsman killed in Iraq

So, you ask, what vehemently un-American propaganda outlet would dare undermine our troops' confidence by running such downbeat stories as these? The New York Times? The Washington Post? The Los Angeles Times? The San Francisco Traitor-Tribune? Anti-Bush Hippie Weekly? What news outlet is next on Karl Rove's anti-war blacklist? Click here to check out the latest rag to not Support Our Troops.

okay, "bad" is a relative term, but would you chategorize bombings and death as good?

democrats debasing the troops... because we didn't send them to war properly equipped? because we deny them veterans' benefits? because we can't seem to set a time frame for their return? because we told the enemy to "bring it on"?

i would categorize those who support the troops while calling them nazis as fictitious because i've never heard of anyone doing that, and those who say they support the troops while cutting their benefits and not adequately equipping them as bushies.

Dick Durbin, Charles Rangle Those people are Senators and Democrats...nuff said.

War is bad. But sometimes it is necessary. Perhaps when you or a family member gets gutted or exploded by an Islamic terrorist, you will agree. Then again, since you despise the Republicans and Christians so much, you would be willing to live in under dhimmitude..

Goblin, one of my high school classmates has already been killed in Iraq and I have/have had several cousins and friends fight out there. I support them. I don't support the idiots who put them there in the first place. How's that for a distinction?

i don't despise all rebpulicans and all christians - i despise those who try to rationalize unjust wars by lying to me and anyone who somehow thinks that god hates anyone because they want to appeal to a certain demographic.

what about all your republican senators who voted against appropriating more money into troop equipment?

GS: Proof? Check out the vote on Senate Amendment 520 (4-21-05), which was introduced by Sen. Bayh, to provide funding to uparmor military vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan. 38 GOP senators and 1 Democrat voted against it. Fortunately for the troops, 17 sane GOP Senators joined all but one of the Democrats and approved the measure.

You can now blow yourself. I normally don't like to mention my military past with the rabid Left, because you vile fux insist that I am a baby killer. It kinda voids the argument, doesn't it you fucking weasel?

Well then, Ian, that should bolster your view on the war with some insight from those on the front lines! Come on, journalist!! Let's hear them. They must be more interesting than a post about how mad I make you, won't it?

Oh, about those troops I know: there are some who wanted to be there. That was before they went. But one of the harder-right guys I know admitted he was not too happy about going. Probably because he's in the National Guard and they're supposed to stay here.

Of the few I know that have come back alive (most are still there on extended tours), they're not big on their commander-in-chief. Not that they necessarily think the war is wrong, but neither are they gung-ho about the way the war's been conducted.

I am not too big on the President, either. The alternative, however, was just plain scary.

I don't need to lend credence to a rabid, angry jerk-off like pusboy. He doesn't deserve it and certainly hasn't earned it. He should just keep himself mired in his X-box, energy drinks and gender confusion.

That's why the Republicans are successful in elections, and the only reason these days. They know they can't run on the strength of their candidates, so they inject fear of the other guy. And it works; I couldn't tell you how many people I know voted Republican in 2000 and 2004 just because they were so piss-scared that Al Gore and John Kerry wanted to turn over our country to our mortal enemies. How irrational is that? How SAD is that?

I, for one, cannot take the neocon attitude seriously because of the complete ignorance that pervades it. And the way you just dismissed PusBoy is reflective of endless instances I've seen of this from righty bloggers, professors and friends.